Over-50

Aging Behind Bars

Switzerland is known for its liberal mindset about the right to die.

As long as human beings are capable of discernment Switzerland is likely to honor their request for what is increasingly being called "euthanasia."

However, Peter Vogt's suicide request to the organization Exit Switzerland has raised myriad questions.

Because his crimes involved sexual assault and he is considered still dangerous, he is serving a life sentence in a Swiss prison. His health is not good. He is 69 years old. He finds being in prison for the rest of his life too much suffering.

It might surprise some that comments to the article about this, which you can read here, show no sympathy to Vogt. There is no struggle to understand his situation. The harshness is eye-popping.

Meanwhile, Exit Switzerland has turned to the Swiss Centre of Expertise in Prison and Probation for guidance. It recognizes that if it assists Vogt that opens to door to similar requests from other prisoners. Vogt had noted that another inmate is also interested in assisted suicide. 

Factored in is the aging of the prison population. That's happening in Switzerland as well as many other nations.

Given that aging tends to diminish hope, it's anticipated that Vogt's assisted suicide could become a contagious idea among older inmates. In her book "Night Falls Fast," Johns Hopkins professor Kay Jamison documents that mindset is not only catchy. It can be romantic. There is also the ethical concern that the cost savings to the prison system from not having to maintain inmates can result in subtle or even blatant pressure for them to opt out of life. Geriatric care is expensive. 

The media attention to this issue could turn Vogt into a celebrity. Ironically, that aura could give him reason to live. A book publisher can set him up with a ghostwriter to publish his memoir before his suicide is scheduled. That could wind up delaying it. Eventually Vogt could inform Exit Switzerland to forget the whole thing. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with niche social networking know-how. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Those Over-50 & AI - Are We Being Knocked Out of Box (or, worse, not even allowed near it)?

By now, it's fairly well known that AI, that is, artificial intelligence, is inherently biased.

After all, humans create the algorithms for AI and those humans use data which contain some or maybe a lot of bias. That's just the way it is.

One example of that had been the racial bias found in healthcare algorithms. U.S. senators such as Cory Booker are looking into those. 

So, the world should be appropriately skeptical of the use of AI in recruiting. After all, so much is at stake in the hiring process, both for the individual and for the organization.

Recode published a major article on the advantages of AI in recruiting as well as the concerns of those in government, ranging from Congress and state legislatures to the EEOC, about what is called "automated decision making decisions." That article is by Rebecca Heilweil. 

Those systems have become essentially end-to-end.

At the front end, they can determine where a help-wanted ad is placed. Already that has become controversial. It had been discovered that those placed on Facebook reflected bias against women and the aging. 

Next the algorithms can be used to choose the resumes which should be reviewed first - and those simply tossed.

Often now, the next step is an AI video interview in which factors ranging from language to facial expressions are assessed. Only at the very last phase of the recruiting process might there be an in-person interview. 

Along the way there might be AI personality assessment tilted toward predicting if this kind of professional will succeed at the organization, how long with that employee stay, and is he or she capable of being promoted. 

The criteria for those decisions usually have been derived from the databases at the organization. That is, historic information is being used to make current decisions. Of course, that immediately raises a red flag since everything keeps changing. 

According to LinkedIn, 67% of those in the recruiting loop find AI helpful. For any job opening thousands of resumes might come in. AI speeds up sorting through the first cut. In itself, that saves money. 

So, yes, this is an efficiency payoff front the get-go. But, some object that the sorting mechanisms could be unfairly knocking out of the box atypical applicants. 

Most of the major concerns about AI fall into three categories:

• Bias. It was found that an AI recruiting tool developed by Amazon (but not used) favored males over females. That was primarily because it had been developed from past employment data at Amazon. That had been compiled when the majority of employees were male.  
• Lack of transparency. Frequently the applicant being interviewed has not been informed that the process is using a video system, what is being assessed, and how will it be used. No consent might have been given. 
• No guarantee of accuracy. After all, hiring is a social process. AI, as it is now constituted, might not pick up nuance. 

Already, in Congress there has been introduced the Algorithm Accountability Act. There is a call for the FTC to review what's going on in the kinds of evaluations of applicants that are being made via video platforms such as HireVue's. 

The EEOC has received two complaints about facial analysis. 

In Illinois, soon to go into effect is the Artificial Intelligence Interview Act. Before the video is clicked on, there must be explicit notification of the process, consent given, and explanation about what is being focused on, evaluated, and interpreted. 

All of this is linked to the guidance established in 1978 by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Section Procedures.  That has been the federal government's way to help organizations not have selection factors which negatively impact minority groups.

Among those protected groups is the older worker. Clearly, one has to ask: Can't the very existence of a video interview early in the process knock the over-50 job hunter out of the box? 

Full Disclosure: Over-50, I avoid all hiring processes for contract assignments and new client accounts which involve video. 

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Sometimes Business and Aging Just Don't Mix Well

The term "discrimination" usually brings up images of mean-spirited decision-makers.

But, the bias, if it really exists, could be from simple business reasons.  That's the real issue: the overall values of business. 

In an article in the LA Times, there are presented allegations of age discrimination at CBS-owned television stations. Yes, the EEOC has investigated. So, there could be something to those clams. 

However, if age bias exists the reasons why may be based on the needs of the business. They may have nothing to do with antipathy toward older workers. Or, how older anchors appear on-air. 

For example, because the media landscape has changed, those television stations are no longer as profitable as they had been. Those earning top salary are targeted. And those are usually older employees who moved up the food chain to the big money.

The stations can replace them with those willing to accept much less. The same pattern is being played out in other forms of media such as publications. The memoir "Disrupted" by Dan Lyons chronicles being tossed out of Newsweek at age 50-something. 

In addition, the brutal reality is that advertisers demand viewers in the 18 to 45 demographic. That kind of audience, in turn, bonds with those their own age. So, the older anchor becomes vulnerable. Soon enough, those aging on-air personalities are gone.

Not that any of this seems ethical. It just doesn't smell right. 

But that's the way it is.

Yes, that's capitalism. No, capitalism isn't pretty.

In fact, the ethos of capitalism is being questioned right now in myriad nations. That probably had been kicked off by the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Harvard Business School has an elective course on reimagining capitalism.

The Business Roundtable pushes for the needs of other stakeholders than just investors to be factored into the operations of a business.

And a meme in the 2020 Election is about embracing aspects of socialism. 

Reflection: Could traditional capitalism be going the way of the low-IQ phone?

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

You're in Crisis - You Bet, You Need to Publish a Book (like Alan Dershowitz)

Publishing a book eats resources, as well as one's soul.

Just consider the expense of hiring a ghostwriter such as myself.

In addition, a book is organic. What becomes Chapter 3 could change much in Chapter 1.

Then, there's the promotion piece. I advise prospective authors: Don't enter the publishing niche unless you can afford a seasoned publicist in the book space. 

However, when the stakes are high, putting a book out there often is a necessary component of a public relations/marketing communication package. 

The most recent example of that is "Guilt by Accusation," put out there by Alan Dershowitz.

At age 81, he finds himself caught, both in the courts of law and of public opinion, in the Epstein looping.

In only 160 pages, his book presents a brilliant defense of both his mindsets and actual behavior. Well, it seems brilliant, at least to a non-lawyer like myself.

Published on the influential O'Dwyer PR, here is my overview of "Guilt by Accusation." Given that O'Dwyer has become interested in that book, obviously it has traction.

Of course, "Guilt by Accusation" could gain support for Dershowitz in the court of public opinion. But in the court of law, where he faces multiple lawsuits, that's another situation. 

So, for those of you playing in the big games, yes, a book is probably a required investment. Actually, to remain on the radar you have to continue publishing books. That's expected.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

The Extreme Disadvantage of Not Growing Up in New York

You don't cut the line.

Not in New York. 

And, now we know: Not in Maryland, either.

If you are insane or suffer from extreme self-destructiveness and do cut the line, punishment may be immediate. Yes, you could get beat up and die. Or the penalty will be dished out later, as in being jumped or your windshield smashed a month later for seemingly no reason. 

That is one of the many lessons in staying alive native New Yorkers get down cold from the get-go. 

Had Kevin Tyrell Davis grown up on the mean and very unforgiving streets of New York or had developed an inner New York ethos he would never have cut the line in Popeyes. He would have dutifully waited his turn for the new Popeyes sandwich in Prince George's County, MD.

But he did cut the line.

As the Daily Mail reports, he was steered outside the food shop and stabbed. He died from those wounds.

A suspect is in custody. Some will not position and package Davis' death as a tragedy. Instead, they will, like a chant from a Greek Chorus, form the consensus that he had it coming. You don't cut the line.

Other lessons I learned in New York which has kept me on the right side of the daises include:

•  Don't take too long paying in change or returning to the aisles in the grocery store for a forgotten item, at least not when already in the process of checking out. That subway train has already left the station.
•  Maintain a set jaw. If done right that discourages unwanted attention and conversation.
•  Acquire "real money," that is, significant wealth.
•  Avoid certainty. Everyone is different and everyone demands respect.

Smart global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

Would You Have Moved Forward with This Application for Work?

On ProBlogger today, Webselense is recruiting content writers for the long term. Here is that help-wanted.

To apply, the applicant has to fill out that business' customized form. There is no warning in the text of the help-wanted on ProBlogger or in the beginning of the application that unpaid work will be required. 

By the time the applicant arrives at the box with the unpaid assignment, he or she has already keyed in a variety of information. That includes pasting in links to three appropriate samples.

Then, there it is: the box mandating the submission of about 200-words on a particular subject. There is no offer of payment for that work. 

Already, of course, the applicant has invested time (and hope) filling out the application.

This "failure to warn" about required unpaid work seems to be a blatant example of a lack of transparency. Does this also represent a breakdown of standard business ethics?

As a career coach for the over-50 I feel for the older applicants who went as far as the "must-work" box and then had to decide if they wanted to play in that sandbox or not. My recommendation would have been this: There are many organizations which operate with total transparency in the recruiting process. Stick with them. Cut your losses now.

Coaching, lecturing, and writing/ghostwriting thought leadership content on aging.

 

For individual coaching – sliding scale fees. Complimentary initial consultation. The displaced over-50 get back to work. Please contact Jane Genova janegenova374@gmail.com.

 

Remembering How Watergate Changed So Much - 6 Tips for How You Communicate During New Impeachment Crisis

Sure, the Stephen Colbert types have artistic license to humor-loop about the decision of the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment inquiry into the U.S. presidency of Donald Trump.

And, as Daily Mail reports, that's what late night talk show hosts did. Those who tuned in probably agree the comedy was some of the best in that broadcast niche. 

But, what we know from three other attempts at impeachment is this: Gravitas is expected in public discourse. This is serious business. It impacts institutions ranging from the global equities market to public school education. Those of a certain recall that from Watergate.

Therefore, this shift to the impeachment narrative may eliminate the residue of snark which hangs on from the beginning of the days of social. The new cool was shooting off the mouth in public in very adolescent ways. The carefully researched and organized message got an eye roll.

That really should have died when Gawker went poof because it pushed the envelope too far and wound up the defendant in "Hogan v. Gawker." Financier for that litigation Peter Thiel wasn't amused by Gawker's rhetoric and content.

Incidentally, the market value of other snark depositories such as Buzzfeed and Vice isn't all that high.

Meanwhile, buttoned-down digital native Drudge Report continues to scale in its traffic numbers. So does equally buttoned-down legal journalism site Law and Crime. In July there were more than 3 million unique visitors. 

Here are 6 tips how to navigate the new public communications space:

• Think the public good. Tone and content have to align with weighty matters. Even before the impeachment story stood on its own legs, some courts were tending to perceive media players as partisan warriors. Journalism? Those traditional 1st amendment protections were being bypassed. 
• Drop the profanity. Discourse will become eloquent. Could it be a return to the era of the Kennedy type oration? Maybe.
• Seek common ground. The nation is trying to unify itself to do the right thing.
• Open all social and other forms of public statements to interactive. That sends the signal that you are reaching beyond ego. Interactive also will increase your traffic, likes, shares, and comments.
• Listen. You may actually change your own thinking. Your communications could have more depth. Substance has been returning.
• Leverage old-line formats, ranging from white papers to newsletters. There is a fusion of formal exposition and the conversational style of social.

Unique global ghostwriting, with social networking know-know. Emergencies welcome. Complimentary consultation (pressure-free) janegenova374@gmail.com.

Help May Be on the Way

Globally, traditional capitalism is being questioned - and attacked.

Here in the U.S. that has been an issue in Election 2020.

The informal headquarters for Worldwide Capitalism - Harvard Business School - offers an election on reimagining capitalism.

So, it should be no surprise that the influential organization - the Business Roundtable - has extended the "purpose of a corporation" beyond shareholder value.

That's radical in recent business history.

The primacy of shareholder value had hardened into business orthodoxy. It had been known as the "Friedman Theory, since it had been put out there by economist Milton Friedman.

It had been standard rhetoric in corporate communications. As those of us in executive communications know, the concept was a must in official and unofficial messaging. Internally, no one questioned it - at least not openly.

Now, the group indicates, other stakeholders should be taken into account in its decision-making. They include employees, customers, and community. Who heads the Business Roundtable is the powerful hands-on head of JPMorgan Chase and thought leader Jamie Dimon. Here are more details from The Wall Street Journal.

The implications are huge.

Among them is that the corporation can shift from the obsession with short-term gain to the long-term. "Impatient capital" could become 20th century. Dimon is especially interested in that.

Also, environmentalism can stand toe to toe with other issues in the C-Suite, in conference calls with security analysts, and at shareholder meetings. Already, investors are focusing on matters associated with a changing climate.

Business models such as Uber's, which leverage the use of gig workers who have no benefits, could be censured. Constituencies such as customers and communities could boycott those corporations.

And, the day could come when never again will a location like the Ohio Valley be devastated when a major plant such as GM's former Lordstown one is shut down, with no replacement. Those in the Valley questioned why GM couldn't have retrofitted the production facility for another vehicle which sold better than the sedan. 

Also, what about the collective mental health on planet earth, in nations, in states, and in cities and towns? Clinical depression has been a long-term global crisis, documents the World Health Organization.

Here in the U.S. if the purpose of a corporation really does get broadened, the kind of humane ethos of the late 1960s counterculture would get a second chance.

Meanwhile, those in the branding industry will have to return to the drawing board. Lawyers will receive a different set of marching orders from clients. 

Globally, the language of capitalism will change.

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

Experience Caps Aren't Necessarily about Age Bias Per Se

In the age-discrimination lawsuit "Kleber v. Carefusion Corp" the plaintiff contended age bias in hiring came via an experience cap.

The Carefusion help-wanted was structured to require 3 to 7 years of work experience as a lawyer. No more than that.

Here is a copy of the complaint.

Dale Kleber, age 58 at the time, had plenty more experience than that. However, he still applied for the position. Eventually, Carefusion hired a 29 year old applicant.

The question arose: Was an experience cap leveraged as a stealth tool to discourage the aging from applying for certain jobs?

Well, Kleber's specific challenge didn't pan out.

As Bloomberg Law reports, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiff.

Here is a copy of that decision.

The Seventh Circuit, 8 to 4, stated that experience caps didn't constitute a type of disparate impact theory. That is, it wasn't a form of seemingly neutral policy that operated as a type of bias against a protected class.

However, some experts warned employers there could be more Kleber-like experience cap lawsuits. Likely, there will be.

Meanwhile, more and more help-wanted specify experience caps and those Google Forms applicants fill out as part of the job search process explicitly ask the number of years working in X or Y niche. That could be managing Price Per Click (PPC) advertising.

Pragmatism rules that applicants would size up what the "right" number of years is and then play in that very specific sandbox. Yes, redo the past to fit with the present.

Otherwise, there may be no access to the toys in that sandbox, ranging from a weekly pay check to benefits. 

But, the present is not so much about raw age bias, is it. 

Instead it's more about price point. Unless a business has a clear and powerful point of differentiation, it can be caught in competing via price. The best briefing on that is "Blue Ocean Strategy" by W. Chan Kim. Here it can be ordered from Amazon.

To keep the price-to-the-consumer/B-to-B market low, employers seek out workers with just enough experience to do the task well so that they can be paid as low compensation as possible.

The new college graduate who had an internship at a marketing firm specializing with PPC would look a lot more attractive to the budget of the employer than an applicant with 6 years experience. Sure, the newbie will probably fly the coop after 2 years but those 2 years could be very profitable for the business.

More and more help-wanted ads indicate that new college graduates are preferred. Since the 90-yar-old could just be graduating college, that phrasing gets employers off the hook on age bias.

In addition, there has emerged a new human resources model - Burn & Earn. It is described in "Disrupted" by Dan Lyons. Here that hilarious book can be ordered from Amazon. Essentially the game is about bringing in a bunch of enthusiastic newbies, training them to do A but not B, make a bundle, and expect them to keep exiting. Repeat. 

Interesting, though, there is a business, based in Manhattan and Chicago, which seems to champion deep expertise. That's the public affairs firm The Dilenschneider Group. On its website it has a section listing its major players and their years of experience. Here you can click it open.

Listed, for example, are:

•  Fred Bona - 40 years
•  Bob Dilenschneider - 30 years
•  Art Gormley - 30 years.

In the fast-moving world of communications, that's counter-trend.

After all, the sandbox, more and more in a digital universe, is custom-made for digital natives. Clients and prospects know the importance of everything from online influencers to local search engine optimization (SEO). So the new toys in the sandbox include everything from help paying off student loans to free food. 

The question is if businesses such as The Dilenschneider Group which position and package long years of experience as a plus have created the unique edge? Or, are they at a new kind of disadvantage? More importantly, does that give the business leverage with price point? 

As those issues are being duked out in the court of law, the hunt for work, and business branding, as early as the age 40 those needing income are finding doors slammed shut because of bias. Here is the article I published on that. If there is a severe economic downturn, that could worsen, of course. Because of their relatively high compensation, the aging usually have a target on their backs. 

Here is my book, free to click open, on how to navigate around all that Download Outwitting ageism. And here, also free, is one on being able to change. Addiction to any comfort zone can mean professional death. 

Full Disclosure: In my early 40s, Corporate America purged itself of middle-aged middle managers. I had to reimage myself as an entrepreneur. Having gotten the hang of how to change, I plan to stay working 60 hours a week until I am 80. Then, I will re-evaluate.

Not getting results from your marketing communications? Complimentary consultation – janegenova374@gmail.com.

Remembering When Character Mattered

The new story in Silicon Valley is an old-fashioned one.

The focus is on ethics. 

It's because of ethics, reports April Glaser in Slate, that students at Stanford are pushing back on tech companies ranging from Palantir to Facebook. 

For example, SLAP (Students for the Liberation of All People) at Stanford protests that Palantir provides the software that ICE uses. And Stanford's C+Social Group encourages students to do internships at nonprofits versus the tech giants. 

It's not a new story that new graduates in elite universities such as Stanford have been turning down job offers at allegedly ethics challenged corporations such as Facebook.

What is new is that iGen, the age group now in higher education, increasingly is disenchanted with BigTech. It seems that Google's founding mantra - Do No Evil - hasn't played out that way.

Rather than a White Knight riding in to solve the problems on planet earth, BigTech is being viewed as adding to them or creating new ones. 

What could be developing is a return to a time when values like good character mattered.

In the era of the Baby Boomers, when we submitted our personal essays for admission to college we had to describe how we managed an ethical challenge. Lack of good character, such as a negative recommendation from a teacher about personal ethics, could knock one out of the box for everything from attending college to being hired for a part-time job. 

Reform of BigTech could come not from regulators or lawsuits but the ethical revolution among members of iGen.